Set "Move up or move out" expectation

[ianbjacobs]

The Rec track is the established means for associating guarantees with W3C specifications. We should more clearly set an expectation that the CG program is for incubation. To solidify guarantees, once a specification relevant to W3C has traction it should move to the Rec track (or, if relevant to another SDO, to that SDO). If there is no plan to advance the specification, work should stop within the W3C CG program.

[michielbdejong]

Hi Ian,

work should stop within the W3C CG program.

IIUC this is talking only about specifications that have traction, right?
The CG itself can continue with its broader incubation and community networking efforts around a topic, as long as it's not seen as the publisher of a semi-mature spec?

[ianbjacobs]

Hi @michielbdejong

Here we are talking about stopping work that both (1) doesn't have traction and (2) for which there is no apparent plan.

We do not expect to stop work that is making progress and for which there is a known or emerging plan.

[mediaprophet]

FWIW - IMHO: Some objectives are more complicated than others.

Once upon a time, I was told that the first web-browser had an edit button and the hope was to bring it back.

Sometimes, objective purposes for works - don't materialise - Indeed the Web Payments Example comes to mind..

AFAIK - there's still effort being made to address some long-standing issues ( Ethical Web Principles Issue 137 )

IMHO: individual contributors to W3C CG projects, aren't doing it - to build some propriatery, 'own all the data' commercially extractive depravity... the difficulty with works intended to promote human dignity, the values in UN Instruments, etc. is that often, its very difficult to find funding - so, people do their best, often in poverty. perhaps, before they end-up getting versioned out.

If work is being done, that has specific ideological, social or 'human rights' related characteristics & intended purposes; somehow, there should be consideration about how to triage events, should that work then be taken forward in a manner, that end-ups having the opposite result; or similarly otherwise, very different to the intents & purposes of a CGs efforts, as the derivatives end-up being different - not the same.

Perhaps the CG members - of any historical groups involved (noting, seems things can move around) - could vote, on whether the outcome sought have in-fact been delivered by subsequent WG works.. or not.. as may then continue to be, a CG effort..

Having historically recieved calls seeking to rely personal notes of representatives whose responsibilities required them to advocate for a position that prompted later, private discussion about the difference between what could be advocated for with 'the hat on' vs. off - perhaps the sacrifice others make, is indeed valued by stakeholders - in a manner, that they're not officially otherwise able to acknowledge. Perhaps also, this has a meaningful impact on the characteristics of W3C specification outputs, indicative of other non-trivial issues, that i hope will become more easily comprehensible via the growth of foaf:agent:software.

I look forward to seeing how you triage the very difficult and complex issues.

(NB: I was prompted to make a note; as is intended, moreover for advocacy purposes, past, present & future, whilst particularly mindful of those now lost & prayers for their families, left behind.)

[ianbjacobs]

See draft Handling standardization ambiguity